Republicans cant wait to debate Wacky Pramila Jayapal's Medicare For All House bill later this month

[Norman]

Medicare is 40 trillion dollars in debt already.

Rather than addressing that "we want more free shit". Certainly, the idiots are for it.

 

[Maxdeath]

The problem with most of those all excited about single payer healthcare is they think that someone else will pay for it.

If they were actually to look at what the countries that have it are really paying they would realize that it is in no way free. Most counties have a fifty or sixty percent income tax to pay for it.

If they want to pay for it fine and dandy lets do it. Of course don't think that for a moment that states will forgo their taxes. So you will be looking at the largest share of your paycheck going for taxes.

Bullshit, and we already pay for everyone else's healthcare.

New York, N.Y., October 8, 2015 — The U.S. spent more per person on health care than 12 other high-income nations in 2013, while seeing the lowest life expectancy and some of the worst health outcomes among this group, according to a Commonwealth Fund report out today. The analysis shows that in the U.S., which spent an average of $9,086 per person annually, life expectancy was 78.8 years. Switzerland, the second-highest-spending country, spent $6,325 per person and had a life expectancy of 82.9 years. Mortality rates for cancer were among the lowest in the U.S., but rates of chronic conditions, obesity, and infant mortality were higher than those abroad.

“Time and again, we see evidence that the amount of money we spend on health care in this country is not gaining us comparable health benefits,” said Commonwealth Fund President David Blumenthal, M.D. “We have to look at the root causes of this disconnect and invest our health care dollars in ways that will allow us to live longer while enjoying better health and greater productivity.”

U.S. Spends More on Health Care Than Other High-Income Nations But Has Lower Life Expectancy, Worse Health | Commonwealth Fund


U.S. Healthcare Ranked Dead Last Compared To 10 Other Countries

U.S. Healthcare Ranked Dead Last Compared To 10 Other Countries


Major Findings
· Quality: The indicators of quality were grouped into four categories: effective care, safe care, coordinated care, and patient-centered care. Compared with the other 10 countries, the U.S. fares best on provision and receipt of preventive and patient-centered care. While there has been some improvement in recent years, lower scores on safe and coordinated care pull the overall U.S. quality score down. Continued adoption of health information technology should enhance the ability of U.S. physicians to identify, monitor, and coordinate care for their patients, particularly those with chronic conditions.

· Access: Not surprisingly—given the absence of universal coverage—people in the U.S. go without needed health care because of cost more often than people do in the other countries. Americans were the most likely to say they had access problems related to cost. Patients in the U.S. have rapid access to specialized health care services; however, they are less likely to report rapid access to primary care than people in leading countries in the study. In other countries, like Canada, patients have little to no financial burden, but experience wait times for such specialized services. There is a frequent misperception that trade-offs between universal coverage and timely access to specialized services are inevitable; however, the Netherlands, U.K., and Germany provide universal coverage with low out-of-pocket costs while maintaining quick access to specialty services.

· Efficiency: On indicators of efficiency, the U.S. ranks last among the 11 countries, with the U.K. and Sweden ranking first and second, respectively. The U.S. has poor performance on measures of national health expenditures and administrative costs as well as on measures of administrative hassles, avoidable emergency room use, and duplicative medical testing. Sicker survey respondents in the U.K. and France are less likely to visit the emergency room for a condition that could have been treated by a regular doctor, had one been available.

· Equity: The U.S. ranks a clear last on measures of equity. Americans with below-average incomes were much more likely than their counterparts in other countries to report not visiting a physician when sick; not getting a recommended test, treatment, or follow-up care; or not filling a prescription or skipping doses when needed because of costs. On each of these indicators, one-third or more lower-income adults in the U.S. said they went without needed care because of costs in the past year.

· Healthy lives: The U.S. ranks last overall with poor scores on all three indicators of healthy lives—mortality amenable to medical care, infant mortality, and healthy life expectancy at age 60. The U.S. and U.K. had much higher death rates in 2007 from conditions amenable to medical care than some of the other countries, e.g., rates 25 percent to 50 percent higher than Australia and Sweden. Overall, France, Sweden, and Switzerland rank highest on healthy lives.

How the U.S. Health Care System Compares Internationally


No other advanced country even comes close to the United States in annual spending on health care, but plenty of those other countries see much better outcomes in their citizens' actual health overall.

A new Commonwealth Fund report released Thursday underscored that point — yet again — with an analysis that ranks 13 high-income nations on their overall health spending, use of medical services, prices and health outcomes.

The study data, which is from 2013, predates the full implementation of Obamacare, which took place in 2014. Obamacare is designed to increase health coverage for Americans and stem the rise in health-care costs.

The findings indicate that despite spending well in excess of the rate of any other of those countries in 2013, the United States achieved worse outcomes when it comes to rates of chronic conditions, obesity and infant mortality.

One rare bright spot for the U.S., however, is that its mortality rate for cancer is among the lowest out of the 13 countries, and that cancer rates fell faster between 1995 and 2007 than in other countries.

"Time and again, we see evidence that the amount of money we spend on health care in this country is not gaining us comparable health benefits," said Dr. David Blumenthal, president of the Commonwealth Fund. "We have to look at the root causes of this disconnect and invest our health-care dollars in ways that will allow us to live longer while enjoying better health and greater productivity."

US health care: Spending a lot, getting the least


Ranking 37th — Measuring the Performance of the U.S. Health Care System
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0910064#t=article


Health Care Outcomes in States Influenced by Coverage, Disparities
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-st...-in-states-influenced-by-coverage-disparities


One explanation for the health disadvantage of the United States relative to other high-income countries might be deficiencies in health services. Although the United States is renowned for its leadership in biomedical research, its cutting-edge medical technology, and its hospitals and specialists, problems with ensuring Americans’ access to the system and providing quality care have been a long-standing concern of policy makers and the public (Berwick et al., 2008; Brook, 2011b; Fineberg, 2012). Higher mortality rates from diseases, and even from transportation-related injuries and homicides, may be traceable in part to failings in the health care system.

The United States stands out from many other countries in not offering universal health insurance coverage. In 2010, 50 million people (16 percent of the U.S. population) were uninsured (DeNavas-Walt et al., 2011). Access to health care services, particularly in rural and frontier communities or disadvantaged urban centers, is often limited. The United States has a relatively weak foundation for primary care and a shortage of family physicians (American Academy of Family Physicians, 2009; Grumbach et al., 2009; Macinko et al., 2007; Sandy et al., 2009). Many Americans rely on emergency departments for acute, chronic, and even preventive care (Institute of Medicine, 2007a; Schoen et al., 2009b, 2011). Cost sharing is common in the United States, and high out-of-pocket expenses make health care services, pharmaceuticals, and medical supplies increasingly unaffordable (Commonwealth Fund Commission on a High Performance System, 2011; Karaca-Mandic et al., 2012). In 2011, one-third of American households reported problems paying medical bills (Cohen et al., 2012), a problem that seems to have worsened in recent years (Himmelstein et al., 2009). Health insurance premiums are consuming an increasing proportion of U.S. household income (Commonwealth Fund Commission on a High Performance System, 2011).

Public Health and Medical Care Systems - U.S. Health in International Perspective - NCBI Bookshelf


Once again, U.S. has most expensive, least effective health care system in survey

A report released Monday by a respected think tank ranks the United States dead last in the quality of its health-care system when compared with 10 other western, industrialized nations, the same spot it occupied in four previous studies by the same organization. Not only did the U.S. fail to move up between 2004 and 2014 -- as other nations did with concerted effort and significant reforms -- it also has maintained this dubious distinction while spending far more per capita ($8,508) on health care than Norway ($5,669), which has the second most expensive system.

"Although the U.S. spends more on health care than any other country and has the highest proportion of specialist physicians, survey findings indicate that from the patients’ perspective, and based on outcome indicators, the performance of American health care is severely lacking," the Commonwealth Fund, a New York-based foundation that promotes improved health care, concluded in its extensive analysis. The charts in this post are from the report.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...care-system-in-survey/?utm_term=.3bea55276072


US healthcare system ranks 50th out of 55 countries for efficiency
US healthcare system ranks 50th out of 55 countries for efficiency


The U.S. healthcare system notched another dubious honor in a new comparison of its quality to the systems of 10 other developed countries: its rank was dead last.

The new study by the Commonwealth Fund ranks the U.S. against seven wealthy European countries and Canada, Australia and New Zealand. It's a follow-up of previous surveys published in 2010, 2007, 2006 and 2004, in all of which the U.S. also ranked last.

Although the U.S. ranked in the middle of the pack on measures of effectiveness, safety and coordination of care, it ranked dead last on access and cost, by a sufficient margin to rank dead last overall. The breakdowns are in the chart above.

Conservative pundits hastened to explain away these results after the report was published. See Aaron Carroll for a gloss on the "zombie arguments" put forth against the clear evidence that the U.S. system falls short.

The U.S. healthcare system: worst in the developed world

U.S. Health Care Ranked Worst in the Developed World
U.S. Health Care Ranked Worst in the Developed World

All that just to admit that you really do not understand. It is estimated that Medicare for all would cost 3.2 Trillion per year. The U.S. Government took in 3.2 Trillion in 2016. Now considering that those types of estimates are usually very conservative, in other words it costs more just how do you think it is going to be paid for if it costs as much or more then every cent the government takes in at the moment.

If you think that welfare, snap or any of the other programs are going to be dropped just so healthcare can be less then think again. If you think that the New Democrat party is going to be happy with the welfare programs already in place then you have been hiding. If you think states are going to accept less taxes then you have a serious problem. If you are delusional enough to think that you can overtax the rich or bussiness, realize that neither of them are required to stay here and supply you.

Actually Medicare for all would save and be cheaper, but don't allow known demonstrable objective reality to get in the way of a corporate state campaign of disinformation. The power structure has to. A majority of the american people are for it, on "both" sides.

And the wealthy aristocracy is going nowhere, they didn't before when marginal tax rates were well over the pissy little 70% being bandied about now. We pay more for shittier healthcare outcomes and shorter life spans because of waste and inefficiencies that make money for some at the expense of society as a whole. Even Canadians get US pharma products cheaper than we do.

You still are on about a little 70%? You need to look at state taxes during that same time frame. State taxes have gone into the stratosphere and they are trying to go even higher as in California wanted to tax texts. Once again you show very little understanding.

Canada gets cheaper drugs because they do not do the research and testing. They only end up paying for a drug after it has been on the market. Their government helps reduce the cost by paying for it.

As I said I have no problem with universal healthcare but you are going to have to double your federal tax burden. It is not free. It will never be free. The problem is too many people think the other guy will pay for it. Nothing in this world works like that.

If we do get universal healthcare be prepared for:
No private or semi private rooms.
Long waits to see a specialist.
Up to a year wait for non life threatening surgery.
Fewer new drugs.
Less medical breakthroughs.

 

[H B Lowrie]

The problem with most of those all excited about single payer healthcare is they think that someone else will pay for it.

If they were actually to look at what the countries that have it are really paying they would realize that it is in no way free. Most counties have a fifty or sixty percent income tax to pay for it.

If they want to pay for it fine and dandy lets do it. Of course don't think that for a moment that states will forgo their taxes. So you will be looking at the largest share of your paycheck going for taxes.

Bullshit, and we already pay for everyone else's healthcare.

New York, N.Y., October 8, 2015 — The U.S. spent more per person on health care than 12 other high-income nations in 2013, while seeing the lowest life expectancy and some of the worst health outcomes among this group, according to a Commonwealth Fund report out today. The analysis shows that in the U.S., which spent an average of $9,086 per person annually, life expectancy was 78.8 years. Switzerland, the second-highest-spending country, spent $6,325 per person and had a life expectancy of 82.9 years. Mortality rates for cancer were among the lowest in the U.S., but rates of chronic conditions, obesity, and infant mortality were higher than those abroad.

“Time and again, we see evidence that the amount of money we spend on health care in this country is not gaining us comparable health benefits,” said Commonwealth Fund President David Blumenthal, M.D. “We have to look at the root causes of this disconnect and invest our health care dollars in ways that will allow us to live longer while enjoying better health and greater productivity.”

U.S. Spends More on Health Care Than Other High-Income Nations But Has Lower Life Expectancy, Worse Health | Commonwealth Fund


U.S. Healthcare Ranked Dead Last Compared To 10 Other Countries

U.S. Healthcare Ranked Dead Last Compared To 10 Other Countries


Major Findings
· Quality: The indicators of quality were grouped into four categories: effective care, safe care, coordinated care, and patient-centered care. Compared with the other 10 countries, the U.S. fares best on provision and receipt of preventive and patient-centered care. While there has been some improvement in recent years, lower scores on safe and coordinated care pull the overall U.S. quality score down. Continued adoption of health information technology should enhance the ability of U.S. physicians to identify, monitor, and coordinate care for their patients, particularly those with chronic conditions.

· Access: Not surprisingly—given the absence of universal coverage—people in the U.S. go without needed health care because of cost more often than people do in the other countries. Americans were the most likely to say they had access problems related to cost. Patients in the U.S. have rapid access to specialized health care services; however, they are less likely to report rapid access to primary care than people in leading countries in the study. In other countries, like Canada, patients have little to no financial burden, but experience wait times for such specialized services. There is a frequent misperception that trade-offs between universal coverage and timely access to specialized services are inevitable; however, the Netherlands, U.K., and Germany provide universal coverage with low out-of-pocket costs while maintaining quick access to specialty services.

· Efficiency: On indicators of efficiency, the U.S. ranks last among the 11 countries, with the U.K. and Sweden ranking first and second, respectively. The U.S. has poor performance on measures of national health expenditures and administrative costs as well as on measures of administrative hassles, avoidable emergency room use, and duplicative medical testing. Sicker survey respondents in the U.K. and France are less likely to visit the emergency room for a condition that could have been treated by a regular doctor, had one been available.

· Equity: The U.S. ranks a clear last on measures of equity. Americans with below-average incomes were much more likely than their counterparts in other countries to report not visiting a physician when sick; not getting a recommended test, treatment, or follow-up care; or not filling a prescription or skipping doses when needed because of costs. On each of these indicators, one-third or more lower-income adults in the U.S. said they went without needed care because of costs in the past year.

· Healthy lives: The U.S. ranks last overall with poor scores on all three indicators of healthy lives—mortality amenable to medical care, infant mortality, and healthy life expectancy at age 60. The U.S. and U.K. had much higher death rates in 2007 from conditions amenable to medical care than some of the other countries, e.g., rates 25 percent to 50 percent higher than Australia and Sweden. Overall, France, Sweden, and Switzerland rank highest on healthy lives.

How the U.S. Health Care System Compares Internationally


No other advanced country even comes close to the United States in annual spending on health care, but plenty of those other countries see much better outcomes in their citizens' actual health overall.

A new Commonwealth Fund report released Thursday underscored that point — yet again — with an analysis that ranks 13 high-income nations on their overall health spending, use of medical services, prices and health outcomes.

The study data, which is from 2013, predates the full implementation of Obamacare, which took place in 2014. Obamacare is designed to increase health coverage for Americans and stem the rise in health-care costs.

The findings indicate that despite spending well in excess of the rate of any other of those countries in 2013, the United States achieved worse outcomes when it comes to rates of chronic conditions, obesity and infant mortality.

One rare bright spot for the U.S., however, is that its mortality rate for cancer is among the lowest out of the 13 countries, and that cancer rates fell faster between 1995 and 2007 than in other countries.

"Time and again, we see evidence that the amount of money we spend on health care in this country is not gaining us comparable health benefits," said Dr. David Blumenthal, president of the Commonwealth Fund. "We have to look at the root causes of this disconnect and invest our health-care dollars in ways that will allow us to live longer while enjoying better health and greater productivity."

US health care: Spending a lot, getting the least


Ranking 37th — Measuring the Performance of the U.S. Health Care System
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0910064#t=article


Health Care Outcomes in States Influenced by Coverage, Disparities
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-st...-in-states-influenced-by-coverage-disparities


One explanation for the health disadvantage of the United States relative to other high-income countries might be deficiencies in health services. Although the United States is renowned for its leadership in biomedical research, its cutting-edge medical technology, and its hospitals and specialists, problems with ensuring Americans’ access to the system and providing quality care have been a long-standing concern of policy makers and the public (Berwick et al., 2008; Brook, 2011b; Fineberg, 2012). Higher mortality rates from diseases, and even from transportation-related injuries and homicides, may be traceable in part to failings in the health care system.

The United States stands out from many other countries in not offering universal health insurance coverage. In 2010, 50 million people (16 percent of the U.S. population) were uninsured (DeNavas-Walt et al., 2011). Access to health care services, particularly in rural and frontier communities or disadvantaged urban centers, is often limited. The United States has a relatively weak foundation for primary care and a shortage of family physicians (American Academy of Family Physicians, 2009; Grumbach et al., 2009; Macinko et al., 2007; Sandy et al., 2009). Many Americans rely on emergency departments for acute, chronic, and even preventive care (Institute of Medicine, 2007a; Schoen et al., 2009b, 2011). Cost sharing is common in the United States, and high out-of-pocket expenses make health care services, pharmaceuticals, and medical supplies increasingly unaffordable (Commonwealth Fund Commission on a High Performance System, 2011; Karaca-Mandic et al., 2012). In 2011, one-third of American households reported problems paying medical bills (Cohen et al., 2012), a problem that seems to have worsened in recent years (Himmelstein et al., 2009). Health insurance premiums are consuming an increasing proportion of U.S. household income (Commonwealth Fund Commission on a High Performance System, 2011).

Public Health and Medical Care Systems - U.S. Health in International Perspective - NCBI Bookshelf


Once again, U.S. has most expensive, least effective health care system in survey

A report released Monday by a respected think tank ranks the United States dead last in the quality of its health-care system when compared with 10 other western, industrialized nations, the same spot it occupied in four previous studies by the same organization. Not only did the U.S. fail to move up between 2004 and 2014 -- as other nations did with concerted effort and significant reforms -- it also has maintained this dubious distinction while spending far more per capita ($8,508) on health care than Norway ($5,669), which has the second most expensive system.

"Although the U.S. spends more on health care than any other country and has the highest proportion of specialist physicians, survey findings indicate that from the patients’ perspective, and based on outcome indicators, the performance of American health care is severely lacking," the Commonwealth Fund, a New York-based foundation that promotes improved health care, concluded in its extensive analysis. The charts in this post are from the report.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...care-system-in-survey/?utm_term=.3bea55276072


US healthcare system ranks 50th out of 55 countries for efficiency
US healthcare system ranks 50th out of 55 countries for efficiency


The U.S. healthcare system notched another dubious honor in a new comparison of its quality to the systems of 10 other developed countries: its rank was dead last.

The new study by the Commonwealth Fund ranks the U.S. against seven wealthy European countries and Canada, Australia and New Zealand. It's a follow-up of previous surveys published in 2010, 2007, 2006 and 2004, in all of which the U.S. also ranked last.

Although the U.S. ranked in the middle of the pack on measures of effectiveness, safety and coordination of care, it ranked dead last on access and cost, by a sufficient margin to rank dead last overall. The breakdowns are in the chart above.

Conservative pundits hastened to explain away these results after the report was published. See Aaron Carroll for a gloss on the "zombie arguments" put forth against the clear evidence that the U.S. system falls short.

The U.S. healthcare system: worst in the developed world

U.S. Health Care Ranked Worst in the Developed World
U.S. Health Care Ranked Worst in the Developed World

All that just to admit that you really do not understand. It is estimated that Medicare for all would cost 3.2 Trillion per year. The U.S. Government took in 3.2 Trillion in 2016. Now considering that those types of estimates are usually very conservative, in other words it costs more just how do you think it is going to be paid for if it costs as much or more then every cent the government takes in at the moment.

If you think that welfare, snap or any of the other programs are going to be dropped just so healthcare can be less then think again. If you think that the New Democrat party is going to be happy with the welfare programs already in place then you have been hiding. If you think states are going to accept less taxes then you have a serious problem. If you are delusional enough to think that you can overtax the rich or bussiness, realize that neither of them are required to stay here and supply you.

Actually Medicare for all would save and be cheaper, but don't allow known demonstrable objective reality to get in the way of a corporate state campaign of disinformation. The power structure has to. A majority of the american people are for it, on "both" sides.

And the wealthy aristocracy is going nowhere, they didn't before when marginal tax rates were well over the pissy little 70% being bandied about now. We pay more for shittier healthcare outcomes and shorter life spans because of waste and inefficiencies that make money for some at the expense of society as a whole. Even Canadians get US pharma products cheaper than we do.

You still are on about a little 70%? You need to look at state taxes during that same time frame. State taxes have gone into the stratosphere and they are trying to go even higher as in California wanted to tax texts. Once again you show very little understanding.

Canada gets cheaper drugs because they do not do the research and testing. They only end up paying for a drug after it has been on the market. Their government helps reduce the cost by paying for it.

As I said I have no problem with universal healthcare but you are going to have to double your federal tax burden. It is not free. It will never be free. The problem is too many people think the other guy will pay for it. Nothing in this world works like that.

If we do get universal healthcare be prepared for:
No private or semi private rooms.
Long waits to see a specialist.
Up to a year wait for non life threatening surgery.
Fewer new drugs.
Less medical breakthroughs.

The aristocracy wil take care of you, do not upset your ruling aristocracy with your representative democracy and societal need nonsense. Who said free? We're paying often more than double what other post-industrial advance nations do for shittier outcomes and shorter life spans. Fear in america is like the air we breathe.

 

[Maxdeath]

The problem with most of those all excited about single payer healthcare is they think that someone else will pay for it.

If they were actually to look at what the countries that have it are really paying they would realize that it is in no way free. Most counties have a fifty or sixty percent income tax to pay for it.

If they want to pay for it fine and dandy lets do it. Of course don't think that for a moment that states will forgo their taxes. So you will be looking at the largest share of your paycheck going for taxes.

Bullshit, and we already pay for everyone else's healthcare.

New York, N.Y., October 8, 2015 — The U.S. spent more per person on health care than 12 other high-income nations in 2013, while seeing the lowest life expectancy and some of the worst health outcomes among this group, according to a Commonwealth Fund report out today. The analysis shows that in the U.S., which spent an average of $9,086 per person annually, life expectancy was 78.8 years. Switzerland, the second-highest-spending country, spent $6,325 per person and had a life expectancy of 82.9 years. Mortality rates for cancer were among the lowest in the U.S., but rates of chronic conditions, obesity, and infant mortality were higher than those abroad.

“Time and again, we see evidence that the amount of money we spend on health care in this country is not gaining us comparable health benefits,” said Commonwealth Fund President David Blumenthal, M.D. “We have to look at the root causes of this disconnect and invest our health care dollars in ways that will allow us to live longer while enjoying better health and greater productivity.”

U.S. Spends More on Health Care Than Other High-Income Nations But Has Lower Life Expectancy, Worse Health | Commonwealth Fund


U.S. Healthcare Ranked Dead Last Compared To 10 Other Countries

U.S. Healthcare Ranked Dead Last Compared To 10 Other Countries


Major Findings
· Quality: The indicators of quality were grouped into four categories: effective care, safe care, coordinated care, and patient-centered care. Compared with the other 10 countries, the U.S. fares best on provision and receipt of preventive and patient-centered care. While there has been some improvement in recent years, lower scores on safe and coordinated care pull the overall U.S. quality score down. Continued adoption of health information technology should enhance the ability of U.S. physicians to identify, monitor, and coordinate care for their patients, particularly those with chronic conditions.

· Access: Not surprisingly—given the absence of universal coverage—people in the U.S. go without needed health care because of cost more often than people do in the other countries. Americans were the most likely to say they had access problems related to cost. Patients in the U.S. have rapid access to specialized health care services; however, they are less likely to report rapid access to primary care than people in leading countries in the study. In other countries, like Canada, patients have little to no financial burden, but experience wait times for such specialized services. There is a frequent misperception that trade-offs between universal coverage and timely access to specialized services are inevitable; however, the Netherlands, U.K., and Germany provide universal coverage with low out-of-pocket costs while maintaining quick access to specialty services.

· Efficiency: On indicators of efficiency, the U.S. ranks last among the 11 countries, with the U.K. and Sweden ranking first and second, respectively. The U.S. has poor performance on measures of national health expenditures and administrative costs as well as on measures of administrative hassles, avoidable emergency room use, and duplicative medical testing. Sicker survey respondents in the U.K. and France are less likely to visit the emergency room for a condition that could have been treated by a regular doctor, had one been available.

· Equity: The U.S. ranks a clear last on measures of equity. Americans with below-average incomes were much more likely than their counterparts in other countries to report not visiting a physician when sick; not getting a recommended test, treatment, or follow-up care; or not filling a prescription or skipping doses when needed because of costs. On each of these indicators, one-third or more lower-income adults in the U.S. said they went without needed care because of costs in the past year.

· Healthy lives: The U.S. ranks last overall with poor scores on all three indicators of healthy lives—mortality amenable to medical care, infant mortality, and healthy life expectancy at age 60. The U.S. and U.K. had much higher death rates in 2007 from conditions amenable to medical care than some of the other countries, e.g., rates 25 percent to 50 percent higher than Australia and Sweden. Overall, France, Sweden, and Switzerland rank highest on healthy lives.

How the U.S. Health Care System Compares Internationally


No other advanced country even comes close to the United States in annual spending on health care, but plenty of those other countries see much better outcomes in their citizens' actual health overall.

A new Commonwealth Fund report released Thursday underscored that point — yet again — with an analysis that ranks 13 high-income nations on their overall health spending, use of medical services, prices and health outcomes.

The study data, which is from 2013, predates the full implementation of Obamacare, which took place in 2014. Obamacare is designed to increase health coverage for Americans and stem the rise in health-care costs.

The findings indicate that despite spending well in excess of the rate of any other of those countries in 2013, the United States achieved worse outcomes when it comes to rates of chronic conditions, obesity and infant mortality.

One rare bright spot for the U.S., however, is that its mortality rate for cancer is among the lowest out of the 13 countries, and that cancer rates fell faster between 1995 and 2007 than in other countries.

"Time and again, we see evidence that the amount of money we spend on health care in this country is not gaining us comparable health benefits," said Dr. David Blumenthal, president of the Commonwealth Fund. "We have to look at the root causes of this disconnect and invest our health-care dollars in ways that will allow us to live longer while enjoying better health and greater productivity."

US health care: Spending a lot, getting the least


Ranking 37th — Measuring the Performance of the U.S. Health Care System
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0910064#t=article


Health Care Outcomes in States Influenced by Coverage, Disparities
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-st...-in-states-influenced-by-coverage-disparities


One explanation for the health disadvantage of the United States relative to other high-income countries might be deficiencies in health services. Although the United States is renowned for its leadership in biomedical research, its cutting-edge medical technology, and its hospitals and specialists, problems with ensuring Americans’ access to the system and providing quality care have been a long-standing concern of policy makers and the public (Berwick et al., 2008; Brook, 2011b; Fineberg, 2012). Higher mortality rates from diseases, and even from transportation-related injuries and homicides, may be traceable in part to failings in the health care system.

The United States stands out from many other countries in not offering universal health insurance coverage. In 2010, 50 million people (16 percent of the U.S. population) were uninsured (DeNavas-Walt et al., 2011). Access to health care services, particularly in rural and frontier communities or disadvantaged urban centers, is often limited. The United States has a relatively weak foundation for primary care and a shortage of family physicians (American Academy of Family Physicians, 2009; Grumbach et al., 2009; Macinko et al., 2007; Sandy et al., 2009). Many Americans rely on emergency departments for acute, chronic, and even preventive care (Institute of Medicine, 2007a; Schoen et al., 2009b, 2011). Cost sharing is common in the United States, and high out-of-pocket expenses make health care services, pharmaceuticals, and medical supplies increasingly unaffordable (Commonwealth Fund Commission on a High Performance System, 2011; Karaca-Mandic et al., 2012). In 2011, one-third of American households reported problems paying medical bills (Cohen et al., 2012), a problem that seems to have worsened in recent years (Himmelstein et al., 2009). Health insurance premiums are consuming an increasing proportion of U.S. household income (Commonwealth Fund Commission on a High Performance System, 2011).

Public Health and Medical Care Systems - U.S. Health in International Perspective - NCBI Bookshelf


Once again, U.S. has most expensive, least effective health care system in survey

A report released Monday by a respected think tank ranks the United States dead last in the quality of its health-care system when compared with 10 other western, industrialized nations, the same spot it occupied in four previous studies by the same organization. Not only did the U.S. fail to move up between 2004 and 2014 -- as other nations did with concerted effort and significant reforms -- it also has maintained this dubious distinction while spending far more per capita ($8,508) on health care than Norway ($5,669), which has the second most expensive system.

"Although the U.S. spends more on health care than any other country and has the highest proportion of specialist physicians, survey findings indicate that from the patients’ perspective, and based on outcome indicators, the performance of American health care is severely lacking," the Commonwealth Fund, a New York-based foundation that promotes improved health care, concluded in its extensive analysis. The charts in this post are from the report.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...care-system-in-survey/?utm_term=.3bea55276072


US healthcare system ranks 50th out of 55 countries for efficiency
US healthcare system ranks 50th out of 55 countries for efficiency


The U.S. healthcare system notched another dubious honor in a new comparison of its quality to the systems of 10 other developed countries: its rank was dead last.

The new study by the Commonwealth Fund ranks the U.S. against seven wealthy European countries and Canada, Australia and New Zealand. It's a follow-up of previous surveys published in 2010, 2007, 2006 and 2004, in all of which the U.S. also ranked last.

Although the U.S. ranked in the middle of the pack on measures of effectiveness, safety and coordination of care, it ranked dead last on access and cost, by a sufficient margin to rank dead last overall. The breakdowns are in the chart above.

Conservative pundits hastened to explain away these results after the report was published. See Aaron Carroll for a gloss on the "zombie arguments" put forth against the clear evidence that the U.S. system falls short.

The U.S. healthcare system: worst in the developed world

U.S. Health Care Ranked Worst in the Developed World
U.S. Health Care Ranked Worst in the Developed World

All that just to admit that you really do not understand. It is estimated that Medicare for all would cost 3.2 Trillion per year. The U.S. Government took in 3.2 Trillion in 2016. Now considering that those types of estimates are usually very conservative, in other words it costs more just how do you think it is going to be paid for if it costs as much or more then every cent the government takes in at the moment.

If you think that welfare, snap or any of the other programs are going to be dropped just so healthcare can be less then think again. If you think that the New Democrat party is going to be happy with the welfare programs already in place then you have been hiding. If you think states are going to accept less taxes then you have a serious problem. If you are delusional enough to think that you can overtax the rich or bussiness, realize that neither of them are required to stay here and supply you.

Actually Medicare for all would save and be cheaper, but don't allow known demonstrable objective reality to get in the way of a corporate state campaign of disinformation. The power structure has to. A majority of the american people are for it, on "both" sides.

And the wealthy aristocracy is going nowhere, they didn't before when marginal tax rates were well over the pissy little 70% being bandied about now. We pay more for shittier healthcare outcomes and shorter life spans because of waste and inefficiencies that make money for some at the expense of society as a whole. Even Canadians get US pharma products cheaper than we do.

You still are on about a little 70%? You need to look at state taxes during that same time frame. State taxes have gone into the stratosphere and they are trying to go even higher as in California wanted to tax texts. Once again you show very little understanding.

Canada gets cheaper drugs because they do not do the research and testing. They only end up paying for a drug after it has been on the market. Their government helps reduce the cost by paying for it.

As I said I have no problem with universal healthcare but you are going to have to double your federal tax burden. It is not free. It will never be free. The problem is too many people think the other guy will pay for it. Nothing in this world works like that.

If we do get universal healthcare be prepared for:
No private or semi private rooms.
Long waits to see a specialist.
Up to a year wait for non life threatening surgery.
Fewer new drugs.
Less medical breakthroughs.

The aristocracy wil take care of you, do not upset your ruling aristocracy with your representative democracy and societal need nonsense. Who said free? We're paying often more than double what other post-industrial advance nations do for shittier outcomes and shorter life spans. Fear in america is like the air we breathe.

Good word salad there.

Your basic problem with what you attempted to say is:
I don't expect anyone to take care of me. I do that just fine.
Why is it when those that can afford it come here for our shitty healthcare instead of staying in their greater free healthcare?
The Democrats are suggesting a 70-90% tax on the wealthy. Is that just for looks? You yourself quoted 70%. So there must be some push for free or there would be no need to increase taxes that high.

I take it you have never researched what those countries are actually paying in taxes for healthcare.

Why if we have such a bad system, such a bad quality of life do we have so many from all over the world wanting to immigrate both legally and illegally? Guess they are just confused.

 

[H B Lowrie]

Bullshit, and we already pay for everyone else's healthcare.

New York, N.Y., October 8, 2015 — The U.S. spent more per person on health care than 12 other high-income nations in 2013, while seeing the lowest life expectancy and some of the worst health outcomes among this group, according to a Commonwealth Fund report out today. The analysis shows that in the U.S., which spent an average of $9,086 per person annually, life expectancy was 78.8 years. Switzerland, the second-highest-spending country, spent $6,325 per person and had a life expectancy of 82.9 years. Mortality rates for cancer were among the lowest in the U.S., but rates of chronic conditions, obesity, and infant mortality were higher than those abroad.

“Time and again, we see evidence that the amount of money we spend on health care in this country is not gaining us comparable health benefits,” said Commonwealth Fund President David Blumenthal, M.D. “We have to look at the root causes of this disconnect and invest our health care dollars in ways that will allow us to live longer while enjoying better health and greater productivity.”

U.S. Spends More on Health Care Than Other High-Income Nations But Has Lower Life Expectancy, Worse Health | Commonwealth Fund


U.S. Healthcare Ranked Dead Last Compared To 10 Other Countries

U.S. Healthcare Ranked Dead Last Compared To 10 Other Countries


Major Findings
· Quality: The indicators of quality were grouped into four categories: effective care, safe care, coordinated care, and patient-centered care. Compared with the other 10 countries, the U.S. fares best on provision and receipt of preventive and patient-centered care. While there has been some improvement in recent years, lower scores on safe and coordinated care pull the overall U.S. quality score down. Continued adoption of health information technology should enhance the ability of U.S. physicians to identify, monitor, and coordinate care for their patients, particularly those with chronic conditions.

· Access: Not surprisingly—given the absence of universal coverage—people in the U.S. go without needed health care because of cost more often than people do in the other countries. Americans were the most likely to say they had access problems related to cost. Patients in the U.S. have rapid access to specialized health care services; however, they are less likely to report rapid access to primary care than people in leading countries in the study. In other countries, like Canada, patients have little to no financial burden, but experience wait times for such specialized services. There is a frequent misperception that trade-offs between universal coverage and timely access to specialized services are inevitable; however, the Netherlands, U.K., and Germany provide universal coverage with low out-of-pocket costs while maintaining quick access to specialty services.

· Efficiency: On indicators of efficiency, the U.S. ranks last among the 11 countries, with the U.K. and Sweden ranking first and second, respectively. The U.S. has poor performance on measures of national health expenditures and administrative costs as well as on measures of administrative hassles, avoidable emergency room use, and duplicative medical testing. Sicker survey respondents in the U.K. and France are less likely to visit the emergency room for a condition that could have been treated by a regular doctor, had one been available.

· Equity: The U.S. ranks a clear last on measures of equity. Americans with below-average incomes were much more likely than their counterparts in other countries to report not visiting a physician when sick; not getting a recommended test, treatment, or follow-up care; or not filling a prescription or skipping doses when needed because of costs. On each of these indicators, one-third or more lower-income adults in the U.S. said they went without needed care because of costs in the past year.

· Healthy lives: The U.S. ranks last overall with poor scores on all three indicators of healthy lives—mortality amenable to medical care, infant mortality, and healthy life expectancy at age 60. The U.S. and U.K. had much higher death rates in 2007 from conditions amenable to medical care than some of the other countries, e.g., rates 25 percent to 50 percent higher than Australia and Sweden. Overall, France, Sweden, and Switzerland rank highest on healthy lives.

How the U.S. Health Care System Compares Internationally


No other advanced country even comes close to the United States in annual spending on health care, but plenty of those other countries see much better outcomes in their citizens' actual health overall.

A new Commonwealth Fund report released Thursday underscored that point — yet again — with an analysis that ranks 13 high-income nations on their overall health spending, use of medical services, prices and health outcomes.

The study data, which is from 2013, predates the full implementation of Obamacare, which took place in 2014. Obamacare is designed to increase health coverage for Americans and stem the rise in health-care costs.

The findings indicate that despite spending well in excess of the rate of any other of those countries in 2013, the United States achieved worse outcomes when it comes to rates of chronic conditions, obesity and infant mortality.

One rare bright spot for the U.S., however, is that its mortality rate for cancer is among the lowest out of the 13 countries, and that cancer rates fell faster between 1995 and 2007 than in other countries.

"Time and again, we see evidence that the amount of money we spend on health care in this country is not gaining us comparable health benefits," said Dr. David Blumenthal, president of the Commonwealth Fund. "We have to look at the root causes of this disconnect and invest our health-care dollars in ways that will allow us to live longer while enjoying better health and greater productivity."

US health care: Spending a lot, getting the least


Ranking 37th — Measuring the Performance of the U.S. Health Care System
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0910064#t=article


Health Care Outcomes in States Influenced by Coverage, Disparities
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-st...-in-states-influenced-by-coverage-disparities


One explanation for the health disadvantage of the United States relative to other high-income countries might be deficiencies in health services. Although the United States is renowned for its leadership in biomedical research, its cutting-edge medical technology, and its hospitals and specialists, problems with ensuring Americans’ access to the system and providing quality care have been a long-standing concern of policy makers and the public (Berwick et al., 2008; Brook, 2011b; Fineberg, 2012). Higher mortality rates from diseases, and even from transportation-related injuries and homicides, may be traceable in part to failings in the health care system.

The United States stands out from many other countries in not offering universal health insurance coverage. In 2010, 50 million people (16 percent of the U.S. population) were uninsured (DeNavas-Walt et al., 2011). Access to health care services, particularly in rural and frontier communities or disadvantaged urban centers, is often limited. The United States has a relatively weak foundation for primary care and a shortage of family physicians (American Academy of Family Physicians, 2009; Grumbach et al., 2009; Macinko et al., 2007; Sandy et al., 2009). Many Americans rely on emergency departments for acute, chronic, and even preventive care (Institute of Medicine, 2007a; Schoen et al., 2009b, 2011). Cost sharing is common in the United States, and high out-of-pocket expenses make health care services, pharmaceuticals, and medical supplies increasingly unaffordable (Commonwealth Fund Commission on a High Performance System, 2011; Karaca-Mandic et al., 2012). In 2011, one-third of American households reported problems paying medical bills (Cohen et al., 2012), a problem that seems to have worsened in recent years (Himmelstein et al., 2009). Health insurance premiums are consuming an increasing proportion of U.S. household income (Commonwealth Fund Commission on a High Performance System, 2011).

Public Health and Medical Care Systems - U.S. Health in International Perspective - NCBI Bookshelf


Once again, U.S. has most expensive, least effective health care system in survey

A report released Monday by a respected think tank ranks the United States dead last in the quality of its health-care system when compared with 10 other western, industrialized nations, the same spot it occupied in four previous studies by the same organization. Not only did the U.S. fail to move up between 2004 and 2014 -- as other nations did with concerted effort and significant reforms -- it also has maintained this dubious distinction while spending far more per capita ($8,508) on health care than Norway ($5,669), which has the second most expensive system.

"Although the U.S. spends more on health care than any other country and has the highest proportion of specialist physicians, survey findings indicate that from the patients’ perspective, and based on outcome indicators, the performance of American health care is severely lacking," the Commonwealth Fund, a New York-based foundation that promotes improved health care, concluded in its extensive analysis. The charts in this post are from the report.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...care-system-in-survey/?utm_term=.3bea55276072


US healthcare system ranks 50th out of 55 countries for efficiency
US healthcare system ranks 50th out of 55 countries for efficiency


The U.S. healthcare system notched another dubious honor in a new comparison of its quality to the systems of 10 other developed countries: its rank was dead last.

The new study by the Commonwealth Fund ranks the U.S. against seven wealthy European countries and Canada, Australia and New Zealand. It's a follow-up of previous surveys published in 2010, 2007, 2006 and 2004, in all of which the U.S. also ranked last.

Although the U.S. ranked in the middle of the pack on measures of effectiveness, safety and coordination of care, it ranked dead last on access and cost, by a sufficient margin to rank dead last overall. The breakdowns are in the chart above.

Conservative pundits hastened to explain away these results after the report was published. See Aaron Carroll for a gloss on the "zombie arguments" put forth against the clear evidence that the U.S. system falls short.

The U.S. healthcare system: worst in the developed world

U.S. Health Care Ranked Worst in the Developed World
U.S. Health Care Ranked Worst in the Developed World

All that just to admit that you really do not understand. It is estimated that Medicare for all would cost 3.2 Trillion per year. The U.S. Government took in 3.2 Trillion in 2016. Now considering that those types of estimates are usually very conservative, in other words it costs more just how do you think it is going to be paid for if it costs as much or more then every cent the government takes in at the moment.

If you think that welfare, snap or any of the other programs are going to be dropped just so healthcare can be less then think again. If you think that the New Democrat party is going to be happy with the welfare programs already in place then you have been hiding. If you think states are going to accept less taxes then you have a serious problem. If you are delusional enough to think that you can overtax the rich or bussiness, realize that neither of them are required to stay here and supply you.

Actually Medicare for all would save and be cheaper, but don't allow known demonstrable objective reality to get in the way of a corporate state campaign of disinformation. The power structure has to. A majority of the american people are for it, on "both" sides.

And the wealthy aristocracy is going nowhere, they didn't before when marginal tax rates were well over the pissy little 70% being bandied about now. We pay more for shittier healthcare outcomes and shorter life spans because of waste and inefficiencies that make money for some at the expense of society as a whole. Even Canadians get US pharma products cheaper than we do.

You still are on about a little 70%? You need to look at state taxes during that same time frame. State taxes have gone into the stratosphere and they are trying to go even higher as in California wanted to tax texts. Once again you show very little understanding.

Canada gets cheaper drugs because they do not do the research and testing. They only end up paying for a drug after it has been on the market. Their government helps reduce the cost by paying for it.

As I said I have no problem with universal healthcare but you are going to have to double your federal tax burden. It is not free. It will never be free. The problem is too many people think the other guy will pay for it. Nothing in this world works like that.

If we do get universal healthcare be prepared for:
No private or semi private rooms.
Long waits to see a specialist.
Up to a year wait for non life threatening surgery.
Fewer new drugs.
Less medical breakthroughs.

The aristocracy wil take care of you, do not upset your ruling aristocracy with your representative democracy and societal need nonsense. Who said free? We're paying often more than double what other post-industrial advance nations do for shittier outcomes and shorter life spans. Fear in america is like the air we breathe.

Good word salad there.

Your basic problem with what you attempted to say is:
I don't expect anyone to take care of me. I do that just fine.
Why is it when those that can afford it come here for our shitty healthcare instead of staying in their greater free healthcare?
The Democrats are suggesting a 70-90% tax on the wealthy. Is that just for looks? You yourself quoted 70%. So there must be some push for free or there would be no need to increase taxes that high.

I take it you have never researched what those countries are actually paying in taxes for healthcare.

Why if we have such a bad system, such a bad quality of life do we have so many from all over the world wanting to immigrate both legally and illegally? Guess they are just confused.

Americans are very confused, that's what your TV and corporate state media are for. Do you need me to explain that post to you? Do you need help chewing up your salad hon? We create many of our "migrants" with our militarist empirical adventures abroad toppling and destabilizing other nations.

 

[Maxdeath]

All that just to admit that you really do not understand. It is estimated that Medicare for all would cost 3.2 Trillion per year. The U.S. Government took in 3.2 Trillion in 2016. Now considering that those types of estimates are usually very conservative, in other words it costs more just how do you think it is going to be paid for if it costs as much or more then every cent the government takes in at the moment.

If you think that welfare, snap or any of the other programs are going to be dropped just so healthcare can be less then think again. If you think that the New Democrat party is going to be happy with the welfare programs already in place then you have been hiding. If you think states are going to accept less taxes then you have a serious problem. If you are delusional enough to think that you can overtax the rich or bussiness, realize that neither of them are required to stay here and supply you.

Actually Medicare for all would save and be cheaper, but don't allow known demonstrable objective reality to get in the way of a corporate state campaign of disinformation. The power structure has to. A majority of the american people are for it, on "both" sides.

And the wealthy aristocracy is going nowhere, they didn't before when marginal tax rates were well over the pissy little 70% being bandied about now. We pay more for shittier healthcare outcomes and shorter life spans because of waste and inefficiencies that make money for some at the expense of society as a whole. Even Canadians get US pharma products cheaper than we do.

You still are on about a little 70%? You need to look at state taxes during that same time frame. State taxes have gone into the stratosphere and they are trying to go even higher as in California wanted to tax texts. Once again you show very little understanding.

Canada gets cheaper drugs because they do not do the research and testing. They only end up paying for a drug after it has been on the market. Their government helps reduce the cost by paying for it.

As I said I have no problem with universal healthcare but you are going to have to double your federal tax burden. It is not free. It will never be free. The problem is too many people think the other guy will pay for it. Nothing in this world works like that.

If we do get universal healthcare be prepared for:
No private or semi private rooms.
Long waits to see a specialist.
Up to a year wait for non life threatening surgery.
Fewer new drugs.
Less medical breakthroughs.

The aristocracy wil take care of you, do not upset your ruling aristocracy with your representative democracy and societal need nonsense. Who said free? We're paying often more than double what other post-industrial advance nations do for shittier outcomes and shorter life spans. Fear in america is like the air we breathe.

Good word salad there.

Your basic problem with what you attempted to say is:
I don't expect anyone to take care of me. I do that just fine.
Why is it when those that can afford it come here for our shitty healthcare instead of staying in their greater free healthcare?
The Democrats are suggesting a 70-90% tax on the wealthy. Is that just for looks? You yourself quoted 70%. So there must be some push for free or there would be no need to increase taxes that high.

I take it you have never researched what those countries are actually paying in taxes for healthcare.

Why if we have such a bad system, such a bad quality of life do we have so many from all over the world wanting to immigrate both legally and illegally? Guess they are just confused.

Americans are very confused, that's what your TV and corporate state media are for. Do you need me to explain that post to you? Do you need help chewing up your salad hon? We create many of our "migrants" with our militarist empirical adventures abroad toppling and destabilizing other nations.

Look little one no matter what you say we have not been at war with South America, Sweden, Denmark or numbers of other countiries yet somehow if you look around you will find both legal and illegal immigrants from those and other countries. But even if you try and make a nebulous argument for them immigrating here because our "militarist empirical adventures abroad toppling and destabilizing other nations" that still has nothing to do with universal healthcare. Now run along and tell your mom that I have been mean to you. Spend some time playing with your barbies if that helps.